PMID- 21835406
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20120501
LR  - 20220410
IS  - 1873-491X (Electronic)
IS  - 0020-7489 (Linking)
VI  - 49
IP  - 1
DP  - 2012 Jan
TI  - Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool 
      (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review.
PG  - 47-53
LID - 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.07.002 [doi]
AB  - BACKGROUND: Systematic literature reviews identify, select, appraise, and 
      synthesize relevant literature on a particular topic. Typically, these reviews 
      examine primary studies based on similar methods, e.g., experimental trials. In 
      contrast, interest in a new form of review, known as mixed studies review (MSR), 
      which includes qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies, is growing. 
      In MSRs, reviewers appraise studies that use different methods allowing them to 
      obtain in-depth answers to complex research questions. However, appraising the 
      quality of studies with different methods remains challenging. To facilitate 
      systematic MSRs, a pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) has been developed 
      at McGill University (a checklist and a tutorial), which can be used to 
      concurrently appraise the methodological quality of qualitative, quantitative, 
      and mixed methods studies. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study is to 
      test the reliability and efficiency of a pilot version of the MMAT. METHODS: The 
      Center for Participatory Research at McGill conducted a systematic MSR on the 
      benefits of Participatory Research (PR). Thirty-two PR evaluation studies were 
      appraised by two independent reviewers using the pilot MMAT. Among these, 11 
      (34%) involved nurses as researchers or research partners. Appraisal time was 
      measured to assess efficiency. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by 
      calculating a kappa statistic based on dichotomized responses for each criterion. 
      An appraisal score was determined for each study, which allowed the calculation 
      of an overall intra-class correlation. RESULTS: On average, it took 14 min to 
      appraise a study (excluding the initial reading of articles). Agreement between 
      reviewers was moderate to perfect with regards to MMAT criteria, and substantial 
      with respect to the overall quality score of appraised studies. CONCLUSION: The 
      MMAT is unique, thus the reliability of the pilot MMAT is promising, and 
      encourages further development.
CI  - Copyright (c) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
FAU - Pace, Romina
AU  - Pace R
AD  - Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, 517 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, 
      QC, Canada H2W 1S4. pierre.pluye@mcgill.ca
FAU - Pluye, Pierre
AU  - Pluye P
FAU - Bartlett, Gillian
AU  - Bartlett G
FAU - Macaulay, Ann C
AU  - Macaulay AC
FAU - Salsberg, Jon
AU  - Salsberg J
FAU - Jagosh, Justin
AU  - Jagosh J
FAU - Seller, Robbyn
AU  - Seller R
LA  - eng
GR  - Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Canada
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
DEP - 20110810
PL  - England
TA  - Int J Nurs Stud
JT  - International journal of nursing studies
JID - 0400675
SB  - IM
MH  - Biomedical Research
MH  - Efficiency, Organizational
MH  - Pilot Projects
MH  - Reproducibility of Results
MH  - *Systematic Reviews as Topic
EDAT- 2011/08/13 06:00
MHDA- 2012/05/02 06:00
CRDT- 2011/08/13 06:00
PHST- 2011/02/03 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2011/05/04 00:00 [revised]
PHST- 2011/07/03 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2011/08/13 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2011/08/13 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2012/05/02 06:00 [medline]
AID - S0020-7489(11)00266-5 [pii]
AID - 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.07.002 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Int J Nurs Stud. 2012 Jan;49(1):47-53. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.07.002. Epub 
      2011 Aug 10.